On the 16th August, what may be called the kidnapping of the Queen took place, and reference is made to Bourgoyne, pp. 160-70, for details. It will be observed how adroitly Gorges, a subaltern of Elizabeth's, suddenly stopped the Queen and delivered one of Elizabeth's insolent messages, charging her with the violation of an agreement which never existed and with a conspiracy against Elizabeth's life in which Elizabeth herself was known to be involved. This was her pretext for her treatment of the Scottish Queen, and ordering her servants to be seized and separated from her. Mary indignantly replied, “Far from having conspired against the Queen, I have never even had such a thought.” This availed nothing, and her followers were thereupon apprehended. The “Stag-hunt” manœuvre was successful in enticing her away from Chartley, and affording Paulet and his satellites an opportunity of carrying out the kidnapping plot and afterwards breaking into her private apartments in her absence, forcing open her cabinets, and carrying away her papers, letters, and all private documents. Bourgoyne tells the story at considerable length, and a pitiable story it is. Then when she discovered they were not returning to Chartley, that she was in fact being kidnapped, she sat down on the road and refused to remount her horse till she knew where she was being taken. Her offering up prayer under an adjoining tree, supported by Bourgoyne and Elizabeth Curle, is one of the most pathetic incidents of her life, and we are indebted to Bourgoyne for the narrative and for the words of the prayer which he has given from memory. We cannot realise at this distance of time the overwhelming agony of the poor captive bereft of her friends and attendants, held prisoner by a tyrant; being kidnapped and taken she knew not where, alike ignorant whether life or death awaited her. No one need be surprised that in such circumstances she appealed to the Almighty. Bourgoyne stood by her and rendered her noble support. He immediately discussed the situation with Paulet, and evidently made some impression on the heart of that heartless individual. It drew from Paulet the expression that the Queen would experience no harm. Paulet in an arbitrary manner took her confidential and devoted attendants from her: Nau and Curle, Melville and Bourgoyne. These were arrested and not allowed any more to accompany her; in short, Nau and Curle never saw her again. There is an important discovery brought to light here, namely, that the Queen had at this date lost all confidence in her secretary Nau because he had become unfaithful and disloyal to her. His conduct after he was taken to London was not only that of a traitor, but he actually made to Walsingham the most unfounded accusations against her.
After the kidnapping of the Queen, one of Elizabeth's attendants named Nicasino Yetsweirt wrote Walsingham on 21st August informing him that Elizabeth approved the order taken for the safe custody of Nau and Curle, and the things that Gorges and Wade had charge of, besides caskets with writings:—
“Her Majesty was anxious to have those caskets safely brought, and she was informed that a discreet person was despatched to assist Gorges and Wade in their charge. She was not satisfied with that, and would have you to provide yet better herein, and specially that the caskets might be brought under sure conduct and by sure persons, for Her Highness attaches more importance to them and their contents than to Nau and Curle. Little she esteemeth them in comparison with the caskets.
MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS.
From the Painting in Edinburgh Castle.
(By permission of Frank C. Inglis.)
“The French Ambassador and Monsieur Deshcool, who is come out of Scotland, had audience today, and Her Majesty said she never saw a man more perplexed than the Ambassador when he was about to speak. Every joint in his body did shake and his countenance changed, and specially when this intended enterprise was mentioned by her. Whereupon, seeming to take more heart to himself, he said, 'I would have moved some suite unto you, but I see your Majesty is somewhat troubled with these jeunes follastres (young fools) that are apprehended.' 'Yea,' said Her Majesty, 'they are such jeunes follastres as some of them may spend ten and twenty thousand francs of Rentes and it may be that there are some who may spend more.' Her Majesty seemeth afraid that this Ambassador might devise some mischievous means to disturb the quiet and sure bringing up of these men, and the things just rescued, whereupon she desired me to warn you that special care be taken thereof.”
This letter forms a link in the chain of the kidnapping outrage and shows the hand of Elizabeth as presumably the head of it. Nau and Curle were sent under a guard to London (Westminster Palace Prison). From that prison they witnessed on 20th September the cruel execution of Babington and one-half of his companions in Palace Yard, including Savage and Ballard; the other half were executed the following day at Tyburn. They admitted ciphering three letters to Babington from minutes alleged to have been written by Queen Mary. On Phillips' decipherment of the one dated 17th July, they said it was the same or like it, and signed an attestation to that effect. Nau, however, privily wrote a narrative of Mary's proceedings in the matter, fully exonerating himself and her from ever practising against Elizabeth's life. This he succeeded in getting delivered into Elizabeth's own hands, to the surprise and displeasure of Burghley, to whom it was shown by her. Burghley endorsed the narrative (contemptuously), “Nau's long declaration of things of no importance, sent privately to the Queen's Majesty.” In another endorsement suspicion is expressed as to how Nau got this letter put into Elizabeth's hands. Surprise should rather have been expressed that Elizabeth, having received such a letter, should have proceeded with the execution of her royal captive. Nau, from his influential position of private secretary to Queen Mary, was able to speak with authority on this point, and it was the first duty of the English Queen after receiving such a letter to make a searching investigation into the circumstances and find out the truth. If Mary was innocent, she ought to have been released on the spot. Nothing evidently would induce Elizabeth to liberate her. This letter was disregarded and the bogus indictment against Mary was proceeded with as if no such letter had been written.
On 24th August 1586 Paulet wrote Walsingham touching on the outrage of 16th August, desiring instructions as to the disposal of Nau and Curle's servants and the removal of Mary to Chartley. This letter is of no moment save as forming part of the record of that event:—